The Sarah Affair: Instructive in the extreme

The content of Cardinal Sarah’s recent presentation at the Sacra Liturgia Conference in London and the way in which it has been received has provided what educators might call a “teachable moment.”

In fact, so instructive has this entire affair been that I hardly know where to begin dissecting it.

I’ll start by addressing what I have learned.

My initial post on the matter was met with no small amount of criticism. I get it. Those of a neo-conservative bent who still manage to harbor authentic Catholic aspirations are desperate for a sign that all is relatively well.

Having placed a certain amount of hope in the words and the person of Cardinal Sarah, I can understand why some didn’t take too kindly to having it dashed so severely.

It’s also more than that, however.

Looking back at some of my recent posts, I have to admit that there’s room for more restraint or perhaps even a little finesse, neither of which come naturally.

I’ve never been one to mince words; not just in my writing, but in general. Over the years, I’ve been told countless times by people close to me that I often come off as overly aggressive or hostile even when, in my mind, I’m just communicating.

If the situation happens to be anywhere close to urgent (or worse, confrontational); the “honey to vinegar” ratio is even more tilted to the latter.

As far as the Church is concerned; the hour is late, my friends. I think “urgency” is an understatement.

Indeed, the Household of God has been ablaze for more than five decades now, but recently something has changed; the flames have intensified considerably, and the heat, at least insofar as it is discernible to traditionalists (aka Catholics), is nearly unbearable.

With the quasi-resignation of Benedict and the advent of the Franciscan dictatorship, the Church’s doctrinal treasury now appears to be on the verge of incineration, and her moral edifice seems to be drawing ever closer to the condition of mere embers.

Given the present state of affairs in the Church and mindful of my tendencies, I know that I have to monitor myself more closely. Don’t get me wrong – I know that I’m not likely to win any style points moving forward, but I also know that I need to do better. I will try.

Moving on, let’s now look at the various ways in which these recent events may be considered instructive.

The smack down

Edward Pentin of National Catholic Register is reporting that Cardinal Sarah met with Francis “in private audience on Saturday, soon after his return from London.”

Translation: Cardinal Sarah was called into the boss’ office for a reprimand.

On Monday evening, Vatican spokesman Fr. Federico Lombardi made public what “was unanimously expressed” in that meeting in a communiqué that can only be understood as a rare public rebuke.

Cardinal Sarah’s crime? Daring to suggest that the Novus Ordo Missae as typically celebrated is too man-centered and it is therefore “very important that we return as soon as possible” to the ad oreinetem posture therein.

Francis and his merry band of apostates moved swiftly to ensure that no one be misled; there will be no widespread return to ad oreintem – not on his watch.

According to the communiqué:

Some of his [Cardinal Sarah’s] expressions have however been incorrectly interpreted, as if they were intended to announce new indications different to those given so far in the liturgical rules and in the words of the Pope regarding celebration facing the people and the ordinary rite of the Mass.

Really? I thought “an attitude that would solve everything by applying general rules” was to be condemned? (Amoris Laetitia 2) I guess that all depends on what the rules tend to promote.

And what exactly were “the words of the (alleged) Pope” in the matter?

The communiqué states:

Pope Francis, for his part, on the occasion of his visit to the Dicastery for Divine Worship, expressly mentioned that the “ordinary” form of the celebration of the Mass is that expressed in the Missal promulgated by Paul VI, while the “extraordinary” form, which was permitted by Pope Benedict XVI for the purposes and in the ways explained in his Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum, must not take the place of the “ordinary” one.

Note the expression, “the ‘extraordinary’ form, which was permitted by Pope Benedict XVI…”

A “certain fashion”

The truth of the matter is that Benedict did much more than simply “permit” the traditional Latin Mass via Summorum Pontificam; rather, he made it clear that it had never been abrogated and it is therefore the right of every priest of the Roman rite to celebrate it.

Francis, by contrast, views the ancient rite as a “certain fashion” that, for now, he is willing to tolerate out of the goodness of his humble little heart.

This stands in direct contradiction to Cardinal Sarah’s Sacra Liturgia presentation wherein he said, “Just because we have a new pope does not mean that his predecessor’s vision is now invalid.”

Like Hell it doesn’t, but let’s be honest; this is nothing new.

The very existence of the Novus Ordo itself testifies to the fact that the post-conciliar popes have no qualms whatsoever about invalidating their predecessors’ vision; even when it is plainly expressed in an irreformable way such as in Quo Primum.

In any case, during their private meeting, Francis apparently made it clear to Cardinal Sarah that he will not allow the sacred signs that are proper to the “extraordinary” form to infect the “ordinary” one.

So much for “mutual enrichment;” a disastrous concept in its own right, but more on that later.

The communiqué also suggests that, insofar as rules are concerned, Francis called the cardinal’s attention to the current General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) for the new Mass which states:

The altar should be built separate from the wall, in such a way that it is possible to walk around it easily and that Mass can be celebrated facing the people, which is desirable wherever possible. Moreover, the altar should occupy a place where it is truly the centre toward which the attention of the whole congregation of the faithful naturally turns.

As I mentioned in my previous post on this topic, the missal in use for the NovusOrdo clearly presumes that the rite is being celebrated adorientem; i.e., there is an obvious tension between the missal and the GIRM.

(Don’t be shocked. After all, there is an obvious tension between the new missal and the doctrine of the faith!)

That aside, there is even greater tension between the GIRM, the communiqué, and Cardinal Sarah’s contention that the adorientem posture “is something good for the Church, something good for our people” and therefore desirable.

Something’s gotta give…

Taking stock of Cardinal Sarah’s mettle

I’ve already gone on record as saying that dressing up the Novus Ordo with sacred signs taken from tradition will only serve to further deceive the faithful as to the dangers of the bastard rite.

Whether or not one agrees with my assessment, there can be no doubt whatsoever that Cardinal Sarah wholeheartedly and passionately believes that Mass “celebrated facing the people” is most undesirable as it diverts our collective focus away from the Lord.

Now that the battle lines have been clearly drawn, and in a most public way, we will find out what Cardinal Robert Sarah is made of:

Will he serve the Lord, or will he dutifully serve his earthly taskmaster, Francis?

Time will tell.

Someone isn’t being honest

Cardinal Sarah stated:

I do not think that we can dismiss the possibility or the desirability of an official reform of the liturgical reform … Indeed, I can say that when I was received in audience by the Holy Father last April, Pope Francis asked me to study the question of a reform of a reform and of how to enrich the two forms of the Roman rite.

In spite of this, the communiqué (which remember, is being presented as that that which “was unanimously expressed during a recent audience granted by the Pope to the same Cardinal Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship”) states:

…it is better to avoid using the expression “reform of the reform” with reference to the liturgy, given that it may at times give rise to error.

One wonders, did Francis ask for a study of a reform of the reform or not? Did he change his mind? Does he simply want to discredit Cardinal Sarah?

Whatever the case may be, someone is being less than honest, and I suspect that it’s not the African.

Fashions change

We’ve already established that Francis sees the Mass of Ages as a “certain fashion” that is merely tolerated.

If Cardinal Sarah’s recollection of his April 2015 audience with Francis is accurate (and I trust that it is), one can well expect that if the blasphemous Argentinian heretic in white lives long enough to do so, he will most certainly set his sights on “enriching” the so-called “extraordinary form.”

One shudders to imagine what the apostates in Rome – the same who can’t praise the Muslims and Jews enough – would like to do with the traditional Mass.

A personal papal insult?

In his Sacra Liturgia speech, Cardinal Sarah issued the following scathing indictment:

I have also seen priests, and bishops, vested to celebrate Holy Mass, take out telephones and cameras and use them in the Sacred Liturgy. This is a terrible indictment of what they understand they are doing when they put on the liturgical vestments, which clothe us as an alter Christus — and much more, as ipse Christus, as Christ himself.

Could it be that the public rebuke of Cardinal Sarah was motivated in part because Francis, a man who clearly enjoys his celebrity status and doesn’t appear to have any problem with paparazzi prelates surrounding the altar at Mass, took the insult personally?

Just wondering…

Benedict’s legacy

While one hopes that the rebuke of Cardinal Sarah will serve to open the eyes of those who as yet do not see Francis for the scourge on the Church that he is; let us not forget that when it comes to the ludicrous notion that Mass “celebrated facing the people … is desirable wherever possible,” we can thank, in large measure, Pope Benedict XVI.

How so?

If there is a man who more clearly understands the inherent value of the ad orientem posture and what was lost in its abandonment than Cardinal Sarah, it is Josef Ratzinger. Anyone who ever read his book, The Spirit of the Liturgy, can attest to just how passionate he is on this topic.

And yet, when he had the sovereign authority to correct the situation, he did absolutely nothing whatsoever to promote its return. In fact, he did the exact opposite.

By instituting the so-called “Benedictine arrangement” wherein the table-come-altar is crowed with candles and a Crucifix, he validated the arguments of those who believe that the priest must always face the people; like an entertainer engaged with his audience.

A fundamental conciliar flaw

Here in the United States, many citizens are appalled that the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has recommended against formal charges being filed against Hillary Clinton for her failure to safeguard classified information.

The reason given by FBI Director James Comey?

A lack of evidence concerning intent (for the record, the applicable statute has nothing to do with intent, but rather negligence), and even some of Clinton’s most vehement detractors have admitted that intent is a difficult thing to prove.

What has this to do with the Council?

Everything.

In his Sacra Liturgia presentation, Cardinal Sarah not only spoke often about the Council’s intent; he held it up as the gold standard for determining what is, and what is not, to be considered an “authentic implementation” of Sacrosanctum Concilium.

This is nothing new. The quest for that elusive “new springtime” has long been couched in such terms.

What may be newly considered at this point, at least by some, is the degree to which this focus on intent serves as an indictment of the conciliar text.

Think about it; so subjective is intent that Pope St. Pius X wrote in his encyclical on the modernists, Pascendi, even as he condemned their errors in no uncertain terms, that he was “leaving out of consideration the internal disposition of soul, of which God alone is the judge.”

And yet, the Council documents are written in such a way that even their staunchest defenders, like Cardinal Sarah, plainly admit that it is necessary to determine the intent of the Council Fathers (as if they are one) in order to know what “authentic implementation” actually looks like.

This is preposterous! The text of an ecumenical council should present objective truths, pastoral propositions and other directives with impeccable clarity; making such subjective considerations as “intent” utterly meaningless.

Bottom line: The text of Vatican II is fundamentally flawed and it must be condemned.

A closer look at SacrosanctumConcilium

Cardinal Sarah, an unabashed champion of the conciliar text, said:

One of the clearest and most beautiful expressions of the intentions of the Council Fathers is found at the beginning of the second chapter of the Constitution … ‘The Church … earnestly desires that Christ’s faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be there as strangers or silent spectators…’

I am certain that this excerpt strikes many a reader as entirely beyond reproach, and yet, this is one of those texts wherein the door was cracked open for all liturgical Hell to break loose.

Christ’s faithful, when present at this mystery of faith, should not be … silent spectators.

Had the text been written to simply to state not as spectators, I could embrace it; as it is, it is wholly misleading and ultimately dangerous.

The reality is (as everyone who frequents the Mass of Ages knows) “silence” in no way whatsoever indicates that one is but a liturgical “spectator” who is somehow detached from the sacred rites.

The two concepts are entirely unrelated, and make no mistake about it – the inclusion of the word “silent” here was deliberate; even if the naïve would-be defenders of tradition at the Council failed to realize its gravity.

Cardinal Sarah, on some level seems to understand the danger that this represents.

He stressed “the priority of internalizing our liturgical participation,” and even said that silence at the liturgy is “helpful [and] indeed indispensable.”

Even so, he also made it clear that he believes that the article of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy wherein it is suggested that “silence” relegates the faithful to “spectator” status constitutes “one of the clearest and most beautiful expressions of the intentions of the Council Fathers.”

This is evidence of nothing less tragic than the loss of reason. It may very well be the result of making the denial of reality a matter of habit; in this case the insistence, against all evidence to the contrary, that the Council is not only blameless for the present ecclesial crisis, but even praiseworthy.

Praising the Council

Cardinal Sarah went out of his way to pay homage to the Almighty Council. This is, alas, an apparent prerequisite for anyone who wishes to ascend to and maintain a position within the heights of ecclesial power.

He said:

I can attest that many Catholic communities and individuals live and pray the liturgy as reformed following the Council with fervour and joy, deriving from it many, if not all, of the goods that the Council Fathers desired. This is a great fruit of the Council.

The liturgy “as reformed following the Council” is a liturgy that was deliberately stripped of numerous sacred signs such as those that emphasize the sacrificial nature of the Mass, its actual purpose, the unique role of the priest, etc.

Any good fruit that is born in the Novus Ordo is the result of God’s unbridled generosity, and this in spite of the reforms following the Council.

A nerve has clearly been struck

The last time – in fact, the only time, as I recall – that the Holy See moved so swiftly to quell “misinformation” it concerned the allegation made by Fr. Dollinger that Cardinal Ratzinger had admitted to him that there is more to the Third Secret of Fatima than what has been officially published.

Precisely, Ratzinger was said to have acknowledged that the hidden portion of the text warns of “a bad council and a bad Mass.”

Especially for our neo-conservative, hermeneutic of continuity, santosubito friends, this could be a major teachable moment:

What do the Council, the new Mass, and the ethos of modern day Rome most have in common?

A near singular focus on man and his soaring dignity; to the point of putting man in the place of God.

Even our aforementioned confreres in the squishy ecclesial middle, the same who are quick to defend the Council and to give the benefit of dwindling doubt to the man they believe to be pope, cannot help but acknowledge that Cardinal Sarah’s assessment of the new Mass was absolutely correct when he said:

In recent decades, we have seen many liturgical celebrations where people, personalities and human achievements have been too prominent, almost to the exclusion of God.

By vehemently and quickly rejecting his plea for a return to ad orientem worship, it should be entirely obvious to all concerned that Rome, in particular as personified at this moment by Francis, is Hell bent and determined to keep the focus squarely on man.

This is a reality that is becoming increasingly impossible to deny.

It should also be entirely obvious at this point that one cannot properly discuss the current ecclesial crisis such as it is so evident in the anthropocentrism of the Council and the new Mass without reference to Fatima.

Indeed, Fatima is precisely where the road to the Church’s recovery leads, and those who continue to insist that the Third Secret has been completely revealed and the consecration of Russia has already taken place are perhaps the only people on earth who are losing credibility faster than Francis.

Related Posts

Latest Comments

RushintuitJuly 12, 2016

What could be worse for the Vatican, than a message from Our Lady concerning “a bad council and a bad Mass”? Is it any wonder then, that when the Secret is made public, Catholics will finally be jolted awake. I would guess that the hard copy of the Secret has been destroyed and those who have read it, are old and few.

I’d like to add, that whoever reveals the Secret will have to have top credibility with the neo Catholics. That makes Ratzinger the #1 candidate. As the material chastisement quickly unfolds, B16 will spill the beans.

Don’t hold back, Louie. What’s the point of that? Just keep doing your job like a man. I thank you. What you wrote today reminded me of a few quotes from Jacinta:
And here, the first quote, I always thought God was talking about clothes…

The second quote is regarding silence in church. Why can’t we all just shut down the noise and contemplate Our Lord’s sacrifice? Ain’t that good enough?

+ “Fashions that will greatly offend Our Lord will appear. People who serve God should not follow fashions. The Church has no fashions. Our Lord is always the same.”

+ Talking in Church: Noticing that many visitors chatted and laughed in the chapel of the orphanage, Jacinta asked Mother Godinho to warn them of the lack of respect for the Real Presence this represented. When this measure did not bring about satisfactory results, she asked that the cardinal be advise that “Our Lady does not want people to talk in church.”

Also, I’ve recently learned a great phrase to describe everything right to the point. I realize that all this, every ugly detail, in and outside The Church, all of it, is a result of our resistance to the Fatima message. Fatima is everything. There are many, ugly, splitering examples of what happens when we disregard Our Lord. Like when He say, for example, chooses to send His Mother down here with urgent warnings and requests and He allows her to seal her appearance with a grand scale miracle of the sun witnessed by 70,000 + people. Yeah, we didn’t listen. This is what we get. We can’t say we weren’t warned. Dear Lord, please have mercy on us.

Someone I recently met said that they have a “Fatima” world view. That sums it all up. I love it. Whether it’s politics, problems in society, The Church whatever- I have a Fatima world view. Only when Our Lady straightens everything out will everything be straightened out. Until then we should really try to do what she’s requested.

Take heart Julie….reread what Louie and Cortez have written…..ITS ALL ABOUT FATIMA…..Our Lady will Triumph, follow Her directives…daily consecration to the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts, rosary, scapular(wear it perserveringly), Five First Saturday’s made in reparation. Visit Fr Gruners Fatima web site , they have an excellent booklet just released, The True Story of Fatima, a complete account of the Fatima Apparition, send for it, and continue to frequent this excellent source of clear Catholic teaching.

Louie, Truth never apologizes to error. As to your point:
“What do the Council, the new Mass, and the ethos of modern day Rome most have in common? A near singular focus on man and his soaring dignity; to the point of putting man in the place of God.”
Translation in plain English?
We have had a continuing series of Modernist Masonic Popes implementing their Masonic Cult of Man Religion and a New Masonic Liturgy aka N.O.M. to reflect it.
That is why no one to date has been able to stop the downward spiral..
It will take nothing short of divine intervention to stop it. Our Lady of Fatima promised Her requested consecration of Russia will happen but it will be late. Our Lady does not lie. Prognosis? Much worse yet to come. Grab a strong hold of your rosaries and pray, pray, pray…..

You folks are not following the news on the Catholic Church. This Vatican-II church is not Catholic. Use your Catholic Common sense.
You folks are “recognizing” a false pope. Many of you say “I don’t know” if he’s the legitimate pope, but all my friends think he is so I’ll sign my name to the list of people who recognize Bergoglio to be the pope.

Remember this exchange between Norfolk and St. Thomas More.

The Duke of Norfolk:
Oh confound all this. I’m not a scholar, I DON’T KNOW whether the marriage was LAWFUL or NOT but dammit, Thomas, look at these names! Why can’t you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship!

Sir Thomas More:
And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?

I agree that the V2 church is a heretical counterfeit in need of conversion. But we also have the prophecy of Saint Francis of Assisi telling of a Pope not canonically elected. We have the prophecy of Anne Catherine Emmerich of a time when there would be two Popes in Rome.

If I were you, I would hold off on a judgement. In the time of the Arian heresy, folks were guessing for years as to the true Pope. Even Saint Athanasius was in favor of the wrong man for a time. The bottom line in all of these cases is, that there was a Pope!

There have been bad Popes down through history. To suggest that the Chair of Peter has been vacant for 58 years is totally bizarre and irrational. To be subject to the Roman Pontiff is a condition of salvation. God will judge the bad guys. Do not judge lest you be judged.

Its true that the idea of not having a pope for 58 years is bizarre. Even worse is the idea of the Catholic Church promoting universal error in contradiction to the known deposit of the Faith….thats downright impossible.

The Church continues on in the remnant, who, by the grace of God, stands fast and holds to tradition. The wheat and the chaff remain together and await the harvest. The wheat does not judge the chaff while they grow together. It falls to the One who gathers, to separate one from the other.

The wheat and the chaff is always going to separated at the end of the day but in the mean time we are called to preach the Truth and convert souls. I know that the vatican 2 religion doesnt care about converting those outside of the faith but the actual Catholic Church paid great heed to their missionary work for centuries…why? To say that we are to let the chaff just rot while they await their judgement, while not speaking out against their sinful way…yeah, to JUDGE them for the sinners they are…is in no way Catholic.

richJuly 13, 2016

The Church is fine….just as you say, even if a remnant remains. The vatican 2 church though is not part of the Catholic Church simply because the Catholic Church CANNOT promote universal (therefore part of the magisterium and THEREFORE infallible) error. The Catholic Church cannot teach/promote something universal in a “pastoral” sense without it being binding. This idea is lunacy that the Catholic Church can do this is lunacy; the very thought that the Church founded by God, in Christ, Himself can ever teach errors that would lead souls to Hell has to be mortally sinful. Even your heretical “cardinals” are now saying that AL is binding on all Catholics. I wonder where they got that idea from?

richJuly 13, 2016

Sorry for the obvious “lunacy” typo there…sometimes I type quicker than I actually think.

SixupmanJuly 13, 2016

Can someone with expertise create an international letter for signature in support of Cardinal Sarah – with clergy, religious and laity having the facility to sign.

Rich, we have the infallible truth right up until 1962. Nothing new has been defined after that. The V2 folks try to fool us with smoke and mirrors and phony saints. There have been bad Popes before now. There are always people who look for excuses to become their own mini pope. You seem to be leaning in that direction.

Sixupman, signatures, petitions, letters, turning this way and that won’t solve the problem. Don’t waste more time. This is a job for Our Lady. This is war with the devil. We are her soldiers. Fall in line. Joyful, Sorrowful, Glorious. Joyful, Sorrowful, Glorious. Joyful, Sorrowful, Glorious. …Get the rhythm and stick with it. It is a simple request-for the simple. This is our mission. This is our action.This is the answer. Simple and beautiful. Powerful. Persevere in the Rosary. She told us what to do. The message is Fatima. Just do it.
Great advice, Theresa.

Except for only a few (VERY few), the Cardinals, Bishops and clergy who attended the Second Vatican Council back in the 60’s, showed great restraint and finesse. Where was the “vinegar”????? We would not be having these discussions if these prelates showed vigorous aggression and justified outrage. How many look back at this opportunity with great regret–perhaps, as they lay dying? Lord, have mercy on us all.

I wonder how many of them had already been corrupted by 1960, as the modernist movement to overthrow the Church had already been in effect for at least the better part of half a century at that point (likely longer than that…paul vi was ordained in 1920, john 23 in 1904).

No doubt, John 23 and Paul 6 and friends had all their ducks in a row ready to manipulate and hijack Vat 2. Vat. 2, for all intents and purposes, was a huge success. The goal was to destroy the Catholic Church as we knew it. Mission accomplished! However, we can be assured that those involved (actively or passively) are not enjoying their success in eternity.

I in good conscience and good will, cannot expose my family to follow the heretical practices and “teachings” of Bergoglio. I am not bashing him, or mocking him at every turn. I just don’t regard him to be the Pope. Ultimately the Lord will judge me. As most here can agree, I will not be judged if I believed so-and-so to have been pope. I will be judged, though on what did I teach my children, my family, those souls which were on special loan from God to me temporarily.
As a Catholic, I cannot just “ignore” a pope or pick and choose whatever teaching I deem worthy. Catholic common sense dictates, I must follow the moral logical conclusion.

I remind you, this is not a game. Whoever wants to play with fire will get burned. I do not tiptoe around the tulips with this issue.

Even at the time of the Great Schism most Catholics chose whom they believed to be the Pope. There were three serious claimants (One real pope of course, Urban VI) and another handful of wanna-be’s. You had laity, priests, bishops and cardinals on all three sides: Rome, Avignon and later in Pisa. After those years of confusion, the Church did not anathematize and/or excommunicate the Catholics who believed the anti-popes were actually the legitimate popes. Why? Because they believed it in good will. St. Vincent Ferrer comes to mind.
But of course unlike today, back then, those Catholics were actually Catholic. They practiced the Faith and laws of the Church to the best of their ability.

St. Robert Southwell was one of those Martyred during the English persecution of Catholics. He was tortured 10 times before before his death, yet never wavered in his Faith. I find this kind of virtue very inspiring – particularly during these times.
In his poem “The Nativity” he wrote:
…Man altered was by sin from man to beast;
Beast’s food is hay, hay is all mortal flesh.
Now God is flesh and lies in manger pressed
As hay, the brutest sinner to refresh.
O happy field wherein that fodder grew,
Whose taste doth us from beasts to men renew.

The Church is fine….as you say it is there, even if a remnant remains. The vatican 2 church though is not part of the Catholic Church simply because the Catholic Church CANNOT promote universal (therefore part of the magisterium and THEREFORE infallible) error. The Catholic Church cannot teach/promote something universal in a “pastoral” sense without it being binding. This idea is lunacy. Even your heretical “cardinals” are now saying that AL is binding on all Catholics. I wonder where they got that idea from?

I think that there is a big misunderstanding as to what the ordinary magisterium actually is. I think that most folks, just like me until not too long ago, believe that the only things that we “have” to believe and adhere to as Catholics need to be declared as “infallible” and obviously this is not accurate.

“All those things are to be believed with divine and Catholic faith which are contained in the Word of God, written or handed down, and are proposed by the Church either by a solemn judgment or by her ordinary and universal magisterium to be believed as divinely revealed.”
(Dogmatic constitution Dei Filius, chapter 3, “Concerning Faith”, Denzinger 1792)

“What is liable to be overlooked is the ordinary and universal teaching of the Church. It is by no means uncommon to find the opinion, if not expressed at least entertained, that no doctrine is to be regarded as a dogma of faith unless it has been solemnly defined by an ecumenical Council or by the Sovereign Pontiff himself. This is by no means necessary. It is sufficient that the Church teaches it by her ordinary magisterium, exercised through the Pastors of the faithful, the Bishops, whose unanimous teaching throughout the Catholic world, whether conveyed expressly through pastoral letters, catechisms issued by episcopal authority, provincial synods, or implicitly through prayers and religious practices allowed or encouraged, or through the teaching of approved theologians, is no less infallible than a solemn definition issued by a Pope or a general Council. If, then, a doctrine appears in these organs of divine Tradition as belonging directly or indirectly to the depositum fidei [“deposit of faith”] committed by Christ to His Church, it is to be believed by Catholics with divine-Catholic or ecclesiastical faith, even though it may never have formed the subject of a solemn definition in an ecumenical Council or of an ex cathedra pronouncement by the Sovereign Pontiff.” (April 1935, Canon George D. Smith, Ph.D., D.D)

Cortez, is Our Lord present in the Eucharist in the Vat2 church if the presider (priest) has no intention to consecrate (mainly because he does not believe in the Real Presence), is creative in the words of consecration and may not be using the proper matter (I’ve witnessed both of these abuses on numerous occasions). I don’t mean to challenge you. This is a legitimate question and I would be interested in your response because it appears to me from your comments that you are very thoughtful and love your Catholic faith. Thank you, Cortez.

Kind and charitable words, mytwocents, I am aware of what you said. Still it makes me wonder why God allows Himself to be present in the Eucharist in many “Vatican 2” churches, as Rich puts it. I agree and respect Rich on so much, but I don’t get his refusal to see that Our Church, the Catholic Church, is being abused and profaned from within. Hence, the crisis in the Church. And, hence his dedicated concern. As I see it, Vatican 2 is an instrument of torcher which God has allowed, just as He allowed His own torcher and crucifixion. This is happening in “The Catholic Church”. Our Lady of Good Success warned us of it and everything. Our Lady of Fatima also told us how to handle it. Our Lady wants to be known under the title: “Our Lady of Good Success”, today for a reason-because of this crisis which we here are all aware of and of which she prophesied. If it weren’t happening “in the Church” then what was she talking about, Rich? We are in this together. She will be Triumphant as she promised, and Our Church will be restored! I hope we live to see the day. For now I acknowledge the horrors within “The Catholic Church” and TRY, though I fall short, to live the Fatima message.